take on this task and that they welcome your family here. we're delighted you're able to be with us this morning. i look forward to casting my vote as secretary of state i'm also happy to join you and the red sox and patriots. >> thank you finally. i want to begin by echoing senator boxer's concerns about continuing to support an agenda that urges equal rights and opportunities around the world. ..

there were several references to the weapons in libya that have now fallen into the hands of terrorists in africa and algeria we saw some of those weapons on the terrorist attacks there. so, when i asked the general who was the centcom commander about this issue, he suggested that it's going to require an international effort to secure these weapons when it assad falls. i wonder if you can talk about how you view that international

efforts coming together and what role the secretary of state should play in that. >> senate turkoman it is an important question. the president's policy he has made very clear is if we have evidence that they are using them or are about to use them -- if they use them we lose control over them or if they move them any significant way that will change the calculation. now, the administration is drawing up plans and working with neighbors in the region and they draw on the others to do that. i can't go into those today because i'm not in on them yet, i'm not briefed amex ackley on what those contingencies are. i just know that they are making them and they are deeply concerned about it. >> should we feel some confidence that russia and china might join in to an international effort on chemical weapons should there be concerns

about what happened to those weapons? >> i can't tell you whether or not -- again, i just don't know about the details of the plan. i do know they have expressed public concerns about that, and i do know there were conversations with the russians when the first indicators to place about the potential movement and the the russians apparently were deeply concerned and may also have weighed in on that time so i think there's a serious concern everywhere that those weapons not fall into the wrong hands. >> thank you. senator cardin mentioned the good work that you deutsch as the chair of the small business committee, something that's very important as we think about the economy of the united states coming and as you point out, the other developing countries around the world. one of the efforts of this administration has been to promote business advocacy abroad for domestic businesses at home. i led a trade mission to india about a year and a half ago with a number of businesses from new

and church, and they talked about how important it was to have that support from the state officials in india as they were looking to try to establish those business relationships. can you talk about how you might continue that and continue that this is something you would be focused on an unwilling to continue to support? >> well, as i said in my opening, i think foreign policy is increasingly economic policy, and we have an undersecretary for economic affairs, economics, energy etc.. i think that the state department historical use to have a foreign commercial service back in 1979. it slipped away. i think the secretary had the time -- i think that is something we ought to be doing

in a very significant way. obviously working with the treasury with agriculture -- atta boy -- ag does and the treasury department does, and i think there is much more that we can do to augment our engagement in the private sector and their desires and needs abroad. i will give you an example. when i was in hong kong and number of years ago i met with our commercial service people. we had three of them. three people in hong kong. and they said they were overwhelmed. they had no ability to be given to mary rfp from china cummins writ with other countries. france was there, germany, england, others were much more aggressive in their promotion of their companies. and that is the world we are living in today. so i think we have to be much more aggressive in that respect. it's not an expenditure.

i view it as investing and it returns on investment many, many times over. so i intend to focus on that. i want to get in and feel it and get to know the folks that are working on all of that and see what they think about it, but i think there is a lot we can do. >> thank you. my time is almost over but i wanted to raise a final point about the western balkans. with so much conflict going and on across the middle east and africa, we forget that not long ago, we were involved in the conflict in the western balkans come and there has been tremendous progress that has been made in that area. but we are still have a stalemate in macedonia over the main issue. we have the dialogue that has not been completed, and we have those countries that aspired to ascendancy and to the e.u., and i would just urge you that further progress in that area is

going to continue to require american leadership, and i hope that we will continue to work in the region to ensure that they continue to make progress. >> we will, senator. and i just want to thank you for your leadership of the subcommittee. you've been absolutely terrific and i look forward to working with you. thanks. >> senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator, i appreciate your thoughtful opening statement and your thoughtful response to these questions. i have a great deal of respect for your level of experience, your knowledge in these areas and i would have enjoyed working with you as a member of the committee. i'm going to enjoy working with you as the secretary of state and i mean that in all sincerity. i want to have a close working relationship. as used in your opening statement, these are complex times. you know, i sort of grew up hoping that that maximum of politics at the water's edge was

actually true. i'm not sure it ever was, but i think it's something we can aspire to. i truly think we share the same goals. we want to secure america, we want a prosperous america. i think that starts being open and honest with each other. i hate to go back to yesterday's news but i think this is important. yesterday when i was asking i got a relatively simple question. i realize being persistent. secretary clinton's reaction was, and i quote, what difference at this point does it make. we are trying to get to the truth of the matter in benghazi come and i didn't want to run out of times we didn't have a chance to ask questions. i think it makes a big difference. i think it matters a great deal that the american people get the truth. i think they have the right to be told the truth. i think they have the right to know what happens. it makes a big difference whether or not the american people have the confidence of the president and the

administration is being truthful with them. so i guess my question is do you agree with that point and are you willing to work with me or do you basically agree with hillary clinton that that is kind of yesterday's news and let's move on. >> well, senator, if you are trying to get some daylight between me and secretary clinton, that's not going to happen here today on that score, but i think that you're not -- i think that we are talking past each other. i don't think that was the question. i think that if your question is should the american people get the truth and does it matter, hillary clinton would say yes and i would say yes but i don't think that is what she was referring to. i think what she was referring to is sort of the question of, you know, the sequencing and the timing of how a particular information cannon with respect to the talking points and the

public statements that remained. and there was a difference of opinion in my judgment as to how you solve that worse is how she saw that. >> the point that i was making as we could have avoided all this controversy. it was for a couple weeks by making a couple of phone calls. let me ask you as the chairman of the foreign relations committee did you make any phone calls? did you ascertain whether it was a protest or not? >> early on and i don't want to go back and we'll litigate with the events that took place, yes, i made phone calls. i was in constant touch with the state department. i was talking to the undersecretary and others immediately. and we were involved in what was happening. >> how soon did you know there were no protests? it's obvious by the accountability review board report there had been no protests. did you know immediately clacks

>> senator, the intel that i got and that i was told by people was there were no protests. there were no protests in benghazi but there have been protests -- >> were their protests in benghazi. is there a reason that we wouldn't have those department of state officials and security people testify in before us so we can find out who knew what and when to get to the bottom of that? >> there is no reason down the road but for the moment, i know that there is an fbi investigation going on, because i personally called the fbi director and i was told that they are making progress and that some things may or may not be right to take place in the not too distant future. >> we work on an ongoing basis

so we can get behind and find out what happened and move beyond that. can you make that commitment to me? >> senator, in all fairness we do know what happened is very clear. were you at the briefings with the tapes? >> there was a briefing in the tapes that we all saw those of us that went through which made it crystal clear. we sat for several hours with our intel folks who described precisely what we were seeing. we saw all of the events unfold and we had a very complete and detailed description. >> we know what happened in benghazi because we have the reports. we don't know why we were misled. i'm just looking to make sure that your secretary -- swedes find out what the administration who knew and the american public. >> i don't want the people to be left with this impression when you say why we were misled, that

implies an intent to actually mislead you somehow. i feel that there was a description of a variant of talking points. i don't know why that happened but there was a description. >> will you help us get to the bottom of why that happened? >> i just want to get that behind us. >> the state department will continue to cooperate as it has in every respect to the committee to aid any committee of relevant jurisdiction. >> i appreciate that commitment. i just want to go back and said foreign policy. we don't have the luxury if we want to compete in the global economy we must compete. i agree with senator corker. maybe we should have been up for an economic position but will you utilize the state to try to get the president to work with

us to solve the issue because this is a matter of prioritizing spending and i don't think we can continue to tax the american economy. we need economic growth but it's about prioritizing spending. i have conservative beliefs foreign aid can be useful, but we have to get our spending out of control. we utilize the position to encourage the president to work with us in good faith to solve the debt and deficit issue >> i spent six months i guess it was or five months as a member of the super committee. and i put an enormous amount of energy and hope that we would be able to get the bigger bargain. i'm not here to go through the details of why we didn't, that there was a very hard line monitor negotiating position that prevented us from being able to come to an agreement which incidentally we just came to. but we can to this with far less on the table and far less accomplished than we would have if we had come to that agreement six months ago or a year ago.

my hope is yes, i certainly will weigh in on that and the degree that it does not impact on - devotee to do my job and the ability of the state department to be able to do its job. we cannot reduce the funding for some of these initiatives that we are engaged in without great cost to help american business, help create jobs and help strengthen our security in the world. so it's in my interest to get this budget effort results even though i will be negotiating other things i will certainly weigh in with anybody that will listen with respect to the imperative of getting it done. but it requires some compromise reasonableness on everybody's part. >> tiff welcome and thank you

for all that you've done to support the tremendous service to the country and the continuation of your family's long tradition of public service. i have deeply enjoyed serving under you hear on the foreign relations committee the last two years as i chaired the subcommittee and have the opportunity from a close vantage point as to watch as you have let the ratification of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty and as you personally intervened to resolve a diplomatic crises and difficult places from pakistan and afghanistan to egypt and sudan. and i really look forward to working with you on some of the challenging issues as it faces the country in the world but we start back to something and number of senators have referred to in your opening statement which you said. i just want to say i've been deeply encouraged by your response to senator shaheen's comments and senator rubio.

we are sadly foreign commercial service woefully underrepresented and wherever opportunity to advocate for american business and american values and as you know i chaired to the hearings on this. we are about to come out with a report from the subcommittee and i would be interested as the first of my several questions and how you see has successfully competing with china which has a rapidly growing footprint across africa in both economic opportunities and in our differing values agenda and what that makes doing for and how you would address that as secretary

e and senator coons were a terrific team with respect to africa and i know senator mccain just took a trip on an important trip. he was in cairo, egypt and he was also in afghanistan. i met with the members of that trip as a bipartisan trip. senator mccain, senator lindsey graham. senator kunes, correct. that kind of report and that kind of intervention has an impact and i know already with reports that what dewaal did there had an impact with the president morsi, so i would urge all members of the committee to be willing and able to engage in the way that senator coons has done. with respect to china and

africa, china is all over africa. i mean all over africa. and they are buying of long term contracts on minerals, you know, you name at. and there are some places we are not in the game, folks. i hate to say it. we have to get in it, but it takes a little bit of resources. believe me, somebody is paying for those folks to be over there and somebody is investing in their investment of time. and we have to be prepared, because i think that what we bring to the table is frankly a lot more attractive than what a lot of other countries bring to the table. people like to do business with american businesses. people were open, were accountable with freedom of creativity and other kinds of things. and i think that if we can organize ourselves more effectively in this sector, we can win. when i say when i don't mean in

terms of cold war terms. i mean in terms of, you know, business contracts, business opportunities, jobs for americans and ability to export, in part with all these things that the difference, too. with the average american pays for the good state of use in everyday life. so it deserves a lot of opportunity and i look forward to working with you to develop it. >> you mentioned earlier there are just three foreign commercial officers in hong kong as senator durbin knows all too well there are only ten on the entire continent of darfur cut and would be great to work with you. we've also worked together before on the issue of poaching and the tragedy of wild life being held all across the continent that then helps finance the networks there is an area that we need to stand up and challenge china on being the largest market to a lot of wretchedness illegal product is going to be on the trip that i just to put senator mccain, senator whitehouse and the others, we visited a syrian

refugee camp and heard very sharp feedback on their perception that the humanitarian aid we've provided so far and the more than $200 million of humanitarian aid that we have provided hasn't reached the people on the ground to go through damascus and the red crescent, but not the syrian opposition council. what would you do as the secretary to ensure that we are more effectively and visibly engaged in supporting the opposition that we've now recognized cracks >> and supporting the opposition in -- >> syria. >> there's a discussion going on right now about other kinds of possibilities. i know senator mccain cares about it and i've offered to sit down with senator mccain and you and others to work this through. and i think in fact as senator whitehouse asked to see some folks of the white house talk to them about this, but we need to

change assad's calculation. right now president assad doesn't think that he's losing and the opposition thinks it's winning. that is not an equation that allows you to reach some accommodation for transitioned. the goal of the obama administration and the international community is to effect some kind of orderly transition. now it's complicated by the fact that now a second envoy has been engaged after kofi annan's and our intense -- in intransigence. i've had personal conversations prior to being nominated as the secretary with the minister

lavrov, which indicated a russian willingness to in fact see the president assad leaves, but they have a different sense of the timing and the manner of that. so, our hope, my hope would be that if confirmed, and when i get in there, to have an ability to take the temperature of these different players can get a sense of sort of where it is, but we have to increase, i think, the ability of the opposition -- strike that, we have to increase their readiness of the president assad to see the die is cast, the handwriting is on the wall to be able to make the judgment here but will save lives and hold the state together in a transition. >> thank you putative i might inclosing it is my view that these admirable diplomatic efforts need to continue. but we frankly also face a very

narrow window to make a difference on the ground in support of the opposition that we have recognized. i will follow-up if i may. >> i hear you and i understand what you're saying if you don't want to wind up with them blaming -- i get it, but you also need to have some understanding, which i don't think it's clear yet of what step one brings you. what is stick to it and step three. there isn't a clarity but particularly the al qaeda from iraq etc.. look, what i commit to do is sit with you, all of you as much as possible. let's sit with the administration, which i will then be part of it and see how these equations work through as we go forward. >> we have plenty of challenges across the continent in the world and i'm grateful for your willingness to step up and voting in support of your confirmation. >> center. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator kerry. i have the opportunity while i

was in the house to travel a few times overseas with you, and i have seen the regard and respect that the officials in the of the countries have for you and for your record and for what you've done. i appreciate that and think that you are well-suited for this position. let me mention one item briefly and then ask you questions with regard to cuba. i felt perhaps differently than some of my colleagues on the panel that the best way to foster change and progress towards democracy is to allow travel, the free travel of americans to let them go as they wish. and i don't think that that is a weakness or any capitulation at all. it's a way to show strength and in fact i've often felt that if we want a get-tough policy with the castro brothers, we should force them to deal with spring break once or twice. [laughter]

but in all seriousness, this president has taken measures to allow more americans to travel freely. relatives to travel for religious, cultural, educational purposes. i think that's a good thing. i hope that you'll find a way to continue that and to continue more innovative approaches to deal with change their akaka with regard to the united nations for a minute that p.a. was granted unesco in 2011 and then again in 2012. full membership by the general assembly that and many of ours is an impediment to the investigations that have to happen. the general assembly is have a habit of doing this over the years and decades remember in the 70's the designated the plo as a representative to really spent time in southern africa. they had designated one of the parties as the sole and authentic representative of the people, and that did nothing but

delay meaningful negotiations between the parties that need it to happen. from your position at the state department, to what measures would be take to ensure that our position, the congress's position is to deny funding to some of these u.n. organs if such reference is made. i know there is some wiggle room for the administration to deal with that, but what is your position in that regard and how can you make sure that our interests are carried forward? >> let me say categorically, and i took the administration made this clear it is a vote on the public statements that we do not feel that unilateral steps are helpful on either side anyway. they are not a substitute for the parties negotiating in resolving the issues to read with respect to some of the funding on the collateral

memberships a few well, because they are not a full member, that we have found that we are better able actually to protect against the nefarious activity and in some cases resolutions which attack israel or other things we are better able to effect that and negate if we are participating. and then if we cease to pay the dues and so forth to take a different attitude than we see we sort of lose the opportunity to protect our friends which we want to have the are getting close to the line that would be very damaging if there were any effort to take israel for instance or any other country, if there is any effort to try to invoke other power that is the kind of unilateral action that we would feel very, very strongly against it and see it as extremely counterproductive.

my hope is that, you know, there were just elections yesterday. we don't know what kind of government will be formed or where they will go, but my prayer is that perhaps this can be a moment where we can renew some kind of effort to get the parties into a discussion to have a different track than we have been on over the course of the last couple of years. and i would like to reserve all of the capacity to be able to do that, so i'm just going to stop with what i've said, but unilateral efforts are not helpful. we oppose them coming and we -- i don't think symbolic or other kinds of efforts are what we need. we need real negotiation, we need real results, we need progress. saxby three. two weeks ago some of us returned from afghanistan seeing the operations there. you described well i think in

your opening statement about the progress being made to the afghan security forces to take over. if we take back and look at iraq for a minute, some of us traveled there in a couple of years before that conflict ended, and we saw some of the building the was going on in particular for planning for a more robust presence than we currently have. there are a lot of state department or embassy buildings that lay vacant now, and i'm wondering what are we doing to ensure that we don't do that same thing afghanistan? what lessons are we learning from iraq? we overbuilt there and when taxpayers see that kind of thing happening, there's a report on the news a while ago about this kind of thing, what can we do -- and some of this is outside of your purview of the defense basis of afghanistan, but what

can we do with regard to the state department to ensure that whatever presence we have, and i hope we do have a residual presence an agreement to carry off the mission is that you outlined, but what are we doing to make sure that it is right sized? >> that is a very good question, senator, and in fact the state department has a specific group, a transition group of house from the lessons from iraq and it comes out of that experience and it is applying them to this effort in afghanistan now. i'm not familiar with everything that they have dug into. i know they are doing it and i know that it exists and i think people are thinking very hard right now about what size footprint ought to exist post the 2014 transition. let me make it clear that i think we have about a thousand

something personnel down directly in the embassy in iraq still. we have some 4,000 slightly less than 4,000 contractors in iraq. that is a pretty big footprint post war and similarly in afghanistan we are pretty large. i intend to look at that closely because there are deep security concerns that we understand post benghazi but also because there is a legitimate question of what size footprint do you want in the aftermath but i can assure you a lot of very qualified expert people who went through the iraq experience are specifically taking the lessons from that and applying them to this transition in afghanistan. and i'm sure in a future hearing and sometime down the road we will begin to that a little more i sure. >> senator kc-x >> senator kerry, it's great to

see you in this capacity in what is really the threshold of a new chapter of your life of service. we are very happy to see today. i want to congratulate you because we are still in the process but i think that will be forthcoming. i am also grateful that with all due respect to the nominee you are my constituent so if you need something today i hope he will call us. [laughter] >> she needs a vote from me. [laughter] >> i think about will be forthcoming as well. a couple issues i want to focus on to place is and really three questions. one is afghanistan and the second is pakistan. with regard to afghanistan, i wanted to ask about the first question relates to president karzai and the elections ahead of him about. when he was here just a couple weeks ago, i had a chance to visit with him and the leader's

office in a number of us in as the senator mccain was there as well and they asked directly about the elections and about my second question, but i wanted to get your sense of where you see those going who and what how to make sure they are free and fair because they are becoming central to the next chapter in this transition. i just want to get a comment on that. the second question as it relates to afghanistan is one that senator boxer raised in her work on this has an exemplary on the women and girls, and in particular i have an amendment that we got for the national defense authorization act to require both state and defense to file a report on the efforts to promote the security of afghan women and girls just by way of ionization monitoring and responding to changes in women's

security vv part of the report and second, supporting gender sensitivity and responsiveness among the afghan security forces and increasing the recruitment and retention in the afghan security forces. so with regards to the election and women and girls. >> senator, with respect to the women and girls, i have a conversation with senator boxer earlier and senator cardin, in which i committed to the ongoing significant efforts secretary clinton has invested in. we will continue to have the ambassador and a special office, two different things within the state department. but more importantly, we think that there can't be an effective piece, and there won't be in afghanistan if we can't hold on to the games and continue them, continue the progress that is being made with respect to the

women's participation in the afghan society, and so we remain committed to that and we are working in every way possible to augment with. i've had a number of people that have made suggestions to me. i won't go into all of them now because of time, but they are exciting. there are people who want to, you know, the involved in this endeavor. the have been inspired by what secretary clinton has done. she has been the embassador enough role and so we are going to continue to do that. now in the elections, there is a group in the american initiative within our effort in kabul and in afghanistan working very hard on dhaka sort of rules of the road for the election and working with the afghani election commission. they are working right now want some of the computer programming and other things that are necessary in order to be able to guarantee that the voting lists are up and accurate and

available. there have been meetings with potential candidates for the president with the opposition folks and others in afghanistan in an effort to be inclusive and transparent in the process and i think president karzai nose and i've said this personally to him. i've said it publicly and the press conference in the departure from kabul and i said it here in the senate as the chairman that having an acceptable the election, it's not going to be perfect, you're not going to be able to have perfection in this process, but a lot of different reasons, having an election met passes muster and is acceptable according to the international observers and the standards will be critical to our ability to have the kind of transition when one would have and to have confidence of the government succeeds in 2014 has legitimacy.

if it doesn't have the legitimacy, if we don't succeed in that effort, it's printed in very, very difficult to convince the american people and convince our allies to stay engaged in this effort with respect to that there were serious questions about the propriety of the process and we have to strike a compromise about it i don't think there will be brewing in that here. i will certainly make sure that we are riding on it very, very closely. >> second, with regard to terribly difficult challenges that we have with regard to the ied that is conducted in pakistan and afghanistan that

become a roadside bombs that have floated so many as well. we know that there is a legal impediment in afghanistan that doesn't do much good because of dhaka calcium ammonium on aid to become nitrate from pakistan. this has been not just perfect to watch but it's been terribly frustrating when i go to pakistan three times, and in the last visit as you have made numerous trips telling the pakistani leader's we need you to help us with this not only to protect our g.i.s but to help protect your own people, and they promise and they promise and they talk about a great plan and a strategy, and so far it is completely inadequate their response. i know you've worked on this, secretary clinton has, and i want to get your sense of how we can make progress to use every bit of diplomacy and engagement

pressure, what ever it is, to insist the government of pakistan takes steps which are readily identifiable to reduce the flow which is a fertilizer that becomes -- >> even a terrific leader and used a lot of attention to this and it's made a difference. it is frustrating. i've had those conversations, i've had them at the highest levels with the president and the general when he was there as the intel chief to it i haven't been back to pakistan and the last year or so for a number of reasons, but i have been in touch with the general. before again i was nominated. i look forward to having conversations as they do with the president and the civilian leadership to see if we can't find a metric sure that works

for both of us because we have to. there is no question about where it is being produced where it is coming from or how come and it just has to be one of those things that we see great operation on. >> thank you. senator mccain? >> thank you for allowing the honor of introducing you to the committee we have had for many years. i didn't want to bring it up, but since it was brought up i have to respond again. they do care why americans were murdered. we do care why american people were misled by the talking points secretary rice told the american people which are false.

there were a sled with the information that we needed to know about how those talking points are put together which we still don't know the answers to many months later. we were misled when we were not allowed -- when we still haven't gotten answers on why there was not better security at the consulate when there was a clear indication of a threat. we were misled when we were not told that there was a request for the 16 member security force to remain at the consulate and we were removed. the list goes on and on. we still have not gotten the answer is as to what happens at benghazi, and for anyone to say that we don't care what happened is absolutely false. and i can tell you that because i talked to the families of those who were murdered pity and we will -- some of us will

continue our efforts to find out the answers to these questions the american people deserve, including why the president of the united states after alleging in eddy bate mitt romney said that he had called it a terrorist act, when in fact he hadn't. in fact that same day she did an interview with cbs news saying he didn't know what happened. as far as two weeks later he told various news programs that he didn't know what was the cause of it. we knew what the cause of it was. we knew that people won't bring our pg is and mortars to spontaneous demonstrations. some of us will not give up on this despite what some in the media think we should do until we get all of the answers. i was hanging on every word that you were saying. i happened to glance at my map. here is abc news report that says the u.n. says there's been

a rate of syrian refugees arriving in jordan putting a considerable strain on the resources. the u.n. rothfuss hcr said that since january the officials at bbc about it at 3,000 were rising every day and released 50,000 or waiting to cross. that happens to be the camp that we visited. if that happens to be the camp where just a few days before and there was a very bad storm and the tents were blown down and there were riots and demonstrations and anger and frustration and the belief that we are not helping them. the anchor that we felt when a young woman that as a teacher said this generation, this next generation of children will take revenge on those that did not

help them. we are selling the wind in syria and we are going to reap the whirlwind, and that will be the increased al qaeda presence and islamist groups which are now flooding into syria as you know 60,000 dead and counting, and the fall of assad is inevitable. you know that assad is thinking about plan b and that is going to the coast and having some cleansing in having our -- allowites. the russians continue to veto every single resolution that might do something about syria, and of course vladimir putin has just enacted one of the most inhumane laws and preventing the americans from adopting the russian children who are deprived of an opportunity of a better life. so, i don't think the status quo

in syria is something that we just need to have more conversations about. i think we ought to tell the syrian people we are going to help them or we are not. we know that the supply of arms so they can defend themselves to counter the arms that are being provided by the revolutionary guard on the ground and there's now hundreds of thousands of refugees putting a strain on our allies. i've had a lot of conversations, we have had a lot of hearings that we haven't done anything and we have again, 60,000 dead and after 22 months all i get frankly from the administration as the fall of assad is inevitable. i agreed but what about what happens in the meantime? so, i hope that -- i know that you are deeply concerned about

the situation, but it's terrible. it's heartbreaking to meet a group of young women as i did in the camp in turkey, the refugee camp who had been gang raped is a really horrible experience, can we can do a lot more without putting american boats on the ground and we can prevent the slaughter and massacre and inhumanity otherwise we will be judged very harsh by history. i hope that and i know from our previous conversations you will make this your highest priority, and i look forward to at least exploring and try to implement a different policy than the one that we have pursued for the last 22 months. well, john, thank you. i have and you know this because we've talked about this at great

length, i have a complete understanding of where you are coming from this and what you are trying to say about the way i do want to say to you that i don't want inquisitive nose or curiosity about what possibilities might exist to be translated and optimism. i don't have optimism. i had hoped because the easiest way to resolve it would be if they -- if together we were able to find some track that changed the equation and the calculation. but i think everybody worries about, john, is that if you have a complete inclusion of the state's, nobody has clear definition of how you put those pieces back to work number one.

and number two, you have a greater risk with respect to the chemical weapons. that's why i want to get in and see what the contingency plans are because i can't measure the risk without having the sense of what is on the table. what i do know is that there are a lot of weapons there. they are not hesitating to provide weapons for coming and that is one of the reasons together with the fact that it's been introduced to the equation the movement on the ground e is faster than the movement. so that's what makes this very complicated. and i'm serious when i say to you we are going to have to sit down. there's nothing we need more than in congressional consensus.

if we can build it on something like this, particularly if the worst happens and you have, you know, disintegration. there are other forces at play that none of us have any control over a. of one of the things that has struck me in the last year the more i travel in the region and talk to people is the death of the sectarian divide. and you know it well. sunni, shia considerations enter deeply into the lots of judgments out there. and so, we have to be particularly -- and others. you've got 74% of syria is sunni muslim, and of that you've got about 16% that is made up of the allowites and then some shia and the allowites are about 13%. christians are about 10%, jews are about 3 percent. so you have a breakdown with interests in various parts of

the country who know one of the scenarios people are talking about is people should break up often and their places and the kurds could be up in the northeast and you could have a disintegration who knows where that would lead. these are the risks pivoted this is what is in stake in the new world we are dealing with. and nobody can sit here and tell you how it all plays out. but we are going to have to get our heads together regardless of the party thinking about the interest of the united states of america, think about the region, think about the interest of the neighbors, think that the interest of our friends like israel, and figured out how we come up with any questions that is workable and meets those interests. final comment, john, i didn't suggest and i don't want to suggest nor do i believe secretary clinton was saying

people don't care about knowing what happened. i think that she was talking about the difference between what the recommendations were and implementing them and this notion that we have to go backwards. here's what i say to you after 29 years or in my 29th i respect the prerogatives in the united states senate and the members of congress. you represent the american people come in you or the branch of government coming you have the right to know what took place, and i have an obligation to commensurate with the regulations and the classifications and the other things that are in play to help you get the answers and we will do that and i hope we can do it in an on contentious and appropriate way. >> can i just mention very quickly, i think that you would agree with me that every day that goes by and syria it gets worse. >> every day that goes by gets

worse. >> it gets worse, so it seems to me there is a very strong impetus that we realize the present policy is not succeeding and to look at other options to prevent what is going on for now 22 months and 60,000 dead. >> but i think you would agree with me whatever judgments you have to make you have to pass the test of whether or not if you do them they are actually going to make things better and you have to make a test of a cost analysis and doing that. and i mean all kinds of costs, human life cost, treasurer, effect on other countries. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and for being here. it's great to see you in the family. the questioning for mutual friend john mccain isn't unexpected. he promised it and he delivered

it. but i do recall his opening comments introducing new and brought me back to my first days in the senate when you and john mccain and the amount veterans work together in a noble task to was double-edged relations in vietnam which continue to this day to deal with the controversy all contentious issues and can to you as a brand new cementer, both of you, on behalf of the congressman from florida that had been named ambassador, first ambassador in vietnam by pete peterson himself a prisoner of war and you have done an extraordinary job of moving them forward and giving him a chance to serve. john mccain, thank you for reminding that chapter of the public career and reminding me what you and john kerry accomplished together. i want to ask you a question about the role of the department of state and the security of the

united states. it's often called upon to negotiate to make it safer. certainly since world war ii there has involved nuclear weapons as it does to the state as we discussed the future of the nuclear insurance by god forbid iran into the nuclear club, which we don't want to see happen. we also know after 9/11 became a new threat, terrorism and a different form, biological and chemical weapons and stateless organizations that attacked united states and killed innocent people. but it was last year or the year before that we were briefed by the state department of defense about the greatest threat and was not either of those things. it was cybersecurity to be devotee that you may have offended the classified briefing for the members of the senate. democrats and republicans would

explain to us this invisible war that goes on even as we meet between the united states and many who are not our friends that are trying to invade us and our infrastructure and our technology and do good harm to us, not just in economic terms, but in terms of human life, and we are told that this is the most serious threat facing us today. it brings to mind the fact that in the 21st century, the war as we know it is much different. it is a war involving the invisible workings of computers. it is a war involving drones and aircraft. so i would like if you cut to just reflect on this in terms of the role of the secretary of state of the united states and negotiations to make us safer in the world where cybersecurity is our greatest threat. estimate well, senator, that is a huge question. and you have hit the nail on the

head with respect to a significant threat. as you know, as legislation or the rough legislation last year which we tried to get through here which would have helped us come a very small step incidentally in trying to deal with this issue, much of this as you know is classified, so it is hard to lay it out for the american people, but everyday while we sit here right now, certain countries are attacking our systems and they are trying to hack into classified information and to various agencies of our government, the banking structures, money has been stolen from accounts and moved in large sums to entities. there is a long list of grievances with respect to what this marvel of the internet and the technology age has brought us, but it's threatening.

it is threatening to our power grid and to our communications. it's threatening therefore to the capacity to respond, and there are people out there that know it and there are some countries that we are currently engaged with, and all the senators know who they are that have a very good understanding of this power and who are pursuing it. set in this sort of the modern-day i guess i would call it 21st century nuclear weapons equivalent in that we are going to have to engage in cyber diplomacy and cyber negotiations and try to establish rules of the road that help us to be able to cope with this challenge. there are enormous difficulties ahead because as you know, and i will try to be very brief about it, i think most diplomacy is an

extension of a particular nation's interests. and in some cases it is an interest of their values. and sometimes you get a terrific opportunity to mix the two and you really can do things that meet all of your aspirations. but sometimes, you know, you are more on the interest than the values, and you cut all pick different countries and different things we have done that meet that. this is one where we are going to have to find a way to address the interests of other states to find common ground if that makes sense to you. we are just going to have to dig into it a lot deeper. we don't have a magic silver bullet to throw at you today. ..

i would ask you in closing try to report to us about the impact of the cuts on our state department, which is very small percentage of our budget, but it's going to face substantial cuts because of the sequestration requirements. >> i gladly raise it. we have to talk about it. i signal to my colleagues yesterday at at hearing which two very distinguished, you know, people with the basis of the report which you are having the hearing which is the -- and

admiral mullen and secretary pickering said we need more to be able to do what we need to do for security. if you want the american presence throughout and provide adequate protection so we are not here for another benghazi hearing. we have to deal with it. we have to get our business done here and do it the right way. >> one final thing, mr. chairman, i want to say to people that -- well, i'll wait -- the budget do it then. >> senator bar burr rays koa i decimated and she said what we're seeing now is people who my grated to other part of the world where they came from primarily in effective affiliates. she said some like al qaeda in islamic -- i use that name

others use different names. they are terrorists, they have extremists, they have designs on overthrowing existing governments. we have to contend with the want to bees and the affiliates going forward. i would ask your assessment on the strength of al qaeda, the affiliates, the wannabes, and the change it's going to present to you as secretary of state. >> it's very real. i agree completely with secretary clinton's statement and her appraisal. the core al qaeda, when we talk about core al qaeda we are talking about the al qaeda that took us to afghanistan and to pakistan. that's core al qaeda. those are the people who attack the united states of america, those are the people that we approved military action again, i think anonymously unanimously in 2001. they have my grated. if you go to the intel, i think it's unclassified, i know it's

unclassified, osama bin laden in the documents that came out is quoted as urging his cohorts to go to other places to get away from the arab floodplains. get away from the drones, and he specifically encouraged al qaeda to disperse, and they did. in addition to that, we have been, the obama administration, under the directive of the president who under took the most concentrated effort in history in terms of targeting the specific terrorist group, we have taken out huge proportion of the leadership of core al qaeda. huge proportion. you adopt want to be number three or number four in line in that business because they're

disappearing as fast as they get the job. obviously the top dog who took the place of osama bin laden still at large, but i think there are those in the intel community and the administration who believe that over the course of the next months that core al qaeda can really be almost degraded to the point that it's that is no longer the threat. the threat; however, has augmented in al qaeda and the arabian peninsula, al qaeda in iraq, which is now playing in syria, and al qaeda in the -- and i think that's why the united states and the president made the decision to support the efforts of the french in mali and that's why there's been a focused effort included going after al-awlaki and the other

two focused on that part of the world. there's a success story even as talk about that increased threat. somalia. somalia where the al-shabaab became associated with al qaeda, we have in fact been able and concert with others not alone, to drive al-shabaab back and see a government emerge which we recognize and we're in a position to help, hopefully, stablize and move to a better relationship. we can change these things, but it takes a focused effort, it takes piers sensor, doesn't happen overnight. i would also argue it takes something more than just drone effort and the other effort it takes that effort to develop a government like we did in somalia, we have to be prepared to do that in the. >> we talked yesterday about bringing to justice the killers

who attack our people on september 11th, and the president said he would bring those killers to justice. the fact that that hasn't happened yet. do you think that's em emboldened the recent attacks? >> i can't get in anybody's mind about what they know or don't know. or what they perceive. i'll tell you this, if so it's going to be short lived. because i know from talking to the fbi director that they are pursuing that diligently. he was personally just in libya and meeting on this, and those efforts are going to continue. i know, that this president, you know, he doesn't bluff about these kinds of things. he said they're going to pay a price and he said he would go to pakistan if we had evidence.

and i'm confident when and if we are prepared we will execute with respect to finding justice for what happened in benghazi. >> i want to move to the keystone x l pipeline. you said it wouldn't be long before it crosses your desk. the bipartisan group of senators nine democrats signed on a letter to president obama asking he approve the construction of the pipeline. we're asking that you process be completed by the end of march. i hope you would be able to comply with that? >> i will try. i need to check with the legal department and make sure i -- i don't want to make a promise i'm unaware of what can be fulfilled. i can tell you this, it's happening in the appropriate due course of business, we'll try to get it done as soon as we can. >> and i had a visit with sam nun who you served with.

what is the important for the united states and humanitarian issue as we look at -- climate change has been a big issue it seems over the next twenty five years the global energy needs are going to increase about 50% that ambitions are going to gap significantly primarily because of china and india, and we can do significant harm to the u.s. economy i think by putting additional rules and regulations with little impact on the global climate. in the tight budget environment with the so many competing american priorities, i would ask you to give considerable thought in to limiting significantly resources that would not help us as an economy or country, and not help us globally in perhaps the efforts you might be pursuing there. i dmont if you have specific thoughts? >> i do. i have a lot of specific thoughts. more than we have time for now. i'm not going abuse the

privilege. ly say this to you, the solution to climate change is energy policy, and the opportunity of energy policy so vastly outweigh the downsides that you're expressing concern about, and i will spend a lot of time trying to persuade you and other colleagues in this. you want to do business and do it well in america? we've got get to the energy race. other countries are in it. i can tell you massachusetts that the fastest growing sector of our economy is clean energy and energy e fresh sei in -- efficiency in companies. they are growing faster than any other sector. the same is true in california. this is a job creator. i can't emphasize that strongly enough. the market that made america rich, richer, we've always been

rich, but the market that made us richer in the 1990s was the technology market. it was a $1 trillion market with one billion users. we created greater wealth in america that has been created in the raging time of no income tax and morgans and carnegie and rock fellers. we have created more wealth than any every single begin tile of american went up. we can do this recognizing that the energy market is a $6 trillion mark compared to one with five billion users going up today going up to the 9 billion users in the next course of thirty years. it's a place to recognize what other countries are doing and what the statesmen are doing

which is theres an extraordinary opportunity in modernizing the grid. we don't have a grid in america. we have a great big open gap. you have the east coast grid, the texas grid, west coast grid, and a line that goes from chicago to the dakotas. we can't sell energy from minnesota to arizona. from arizona to massachusetts, or to the cold states and so forth. it doesn't make sense. we can't be a modern country if we don't fix that infrastructure. i would respectfully say to you, that climate change is not something to be feared in response to, i mean, the steps to respond to it. it's to be feared if we don't. 3,500 communities in our nation last wear broke records for heat. we have a rail because of the -- derailment as a result of the health heat. we had record fires, and record

levels of damage from hurricane sandy. $70 billion, if we can't see the downside of spending that money and risking lives for all of the changes that are taking place to agricultural to our communities the ocean and so forth, we're just ignoring what science is telling us. i will be a passionate advocate about this. not based on ideology. based on facts and science. and i hope to sit with all of you and convince you the $6 trillion market is worth millions of american jobs and leadership. and we better go after it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator udall. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to my good friend, senator barrasso, wyoming is a producer state and new mexico is also a producer state. and i found the same experience that the senator kerry talked about in terms of massachusetts, in new mexico, the fastest

growing sector in the renewable jobs. and so i think it's a big opportunity for us, we should be pursuing it. i grew with what he -- i agree with what he just said. hypo with can work with each other. we should try to pull together and discuss the facts and really pursue this sector that is going to be so vital to the future, and vital actually to job growth. but john, great to have you here. you earned this. there's no doubt about it. it's great to see tear reisha and -- theresa and van necessary is a. i was walking over here and saw the cutest grandchild. i asked if he was coming in but he was going wait outside. >> he's pretty shy. [laughter] >> i -- in my observation here, my short period on the foreign

relations committee, i think a great deal of what good foreign policy about is building person relationship, and building personal relationships with leaders around the world. and the one thing that i've really observed senator kerry in you is that you have done that. we have had so many of the private meetings over there in the capitol and the small foreign relations room, and i can just feel with meeting with the leads the tremendous respect that they have for you, and the ability you're going have to build on that to make an excellent secretary of state. so i'm very excited about this opportunity for you, and i want -- in my first question here, i want to focus on mexico and central america. during the last decade, relations between the united states and mexico have strength

ened as a result our shared security goals relating to the initiative. and one of the pillars of that initiative includes judicial reform. i think you know it very well. however the federal government and many of the mexican states have yet to pass legislation which would change the judicial system from an inquiz territorial system toed aer have -- i have a lot of -- we would meet with the mexican states and they ask us to loan people to them to help train in thed aer have czarrial system. in my question is how can the u.s. better work with our neighbors in mexico to improve transparency, e fresh sei and the quality of the judicial system and improve this transition they're trying to make from inquisitive toed aer

adversarial. >> thank you for your comments. i appreciate working with you and appreciate your comments. we are engaged now, i think you know this. there are ongoing efforts with respect to the justice system. there's been a lot of focus on guns and narcotics and so forth. and a shoplilft in policy -- shift in policy within mexico. the president was, you know, recently here for meetings. my hope is that we can keep , i mean, i want to keep the existing efforts going, which could become subject to the sequestration and budget efforts. so i guess we have to convince our colleagues and -- on the importance of these kinds of initiatives actually taking root and having the willingness to stay at them until we get more results. mexico has been under seiege.

a lot of courage by them. i think there's an effort to move it away from the mill tear and more to the justice system. we have to double our efforts here and make sure we're funding the personnel and the program itself. i will work with that, but we need the cooperation up here to get that kind of eximent. >> great. thank you very much. as you know, the new president of mexico, is stated that his strategy with regards to security cooperation is to achieve a mexico in peace, is what he calls it and the government will not abandon the fight against organized crime. how will you work to ensure that areas of mutual interest between the two countries get the attention they deserve, and how

we get that cooperation along the border? it just seems to me it's absolutely crucial the cooperation along the border. they have six border states, we have four, and it's crucial that we work with each other on that. >> well, the president is indeed trying to move this, as i said, in a different direction. it's been a highly militarized and violent initiative over the last years. we, you know, i'm a former prosecutor. you're a former attorney general. i used to -- i was the chief administrative prosecutor in one of the ten largest counties in america, and i love prosecuting. it was a great job. i remember we created a drug task force and had all kinds of, you know, plans for how to proceed to minimize the impact of narcotics on our communities. and one of the things i learned is that there's no one

approach. you've got to be doing everything you need to do. and that means domestically in the united states you have to do education, you have to do treatment. because what we have is just a reinvolving circle of demand, and we're the principle demand country. not alone now. europe is huge demand, russia and other countries increasing demand. cocaine routes and marijuana routes, et. cetera, are not just coming up from colombia and other countries where it was produced, latin america and caribbean up to here. it's going across the atlantic and other countries. it comes from asia and other countries. it's pandemic. and so i think we need a more comprehensive approach, one where it's less accuse story, finger pointing and you work to understand everybody's role in trying to do something about

it. i always felt that this label of war on drugs is kind of are -- artificial because war implies it's all out. you have to win. i don't think it's ever been all out. and principally because we have always failed to do our part with respect to treatment and education and ab stens and so forth. we have to reengage ourselves and thing would help establish credibility and viability with other countries. >> thank you very much for those answers. >> senator. >> senator kerry, thank you for coming today and for your testimony. i agree with candidate president obama who said in 2007 that the president doesn't have the power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack. i would like to know if you agree with candidate president obama or president obama who took us to war in libya without

congressional authority unilaterally. >> well, senator paul, one of the things the committee spent a lot of time on is the war powers act, which i support. and i believe in congressional authority to go to war. i would argue that on occasion with respect to some things here, but there are occasions, which i have supported where the president of the united states has to make a decision immediately, and implement that decision and execute on it immediately. i supported ronald reagan when he sent troops out. i supported george h. w. bush when he sent troops to panama. i supported president clinton when against the will of the congress, he did what was needed to be done in bosnia, closet vow, and so forth. and in this particular instance, i think the president behaviored

in that tradition. >> i would argue that the constitution has no exceptions for when you're having a tough time or people disagree with you that you go ahead and do it. >> in the early 1970s affiliate vietnam you were critical of the bombing in cambodia. i think you felt it wasn't authorized by congress. has your opinion changed about the bombing in cambodia? how is cambodia different than libya? >> nor did my opinion change or has it ever altered about the war itself where i don't believe, and i argued that. >> was cambodia different than libya? >> yeah, it was. it was an extension of the war being prosecuted without the involvement of congress after a number of years. that's very different. >> length of time. but similar circumstances bombing campaign unthorszed by congress. the constitution doesn't give the lotted attitude to sometimes go to war and sometimes not go to war. i thought president obama was explicit and that's what i liked

about him. rand paul didn't like anything about president obama. i did like the forthrightness and said no president should unilaterally go to war. >> i respect that. you can apply it to every circumstance. the problem is just doesn't work in some instances. with 10,000 people are about to wiped out by a brutal dictator and you need to make a quick judgment, you can't rely on a congress that has proven itself unwilling to move after weeks and months sometimes. >> you think a u.n. resolution sufficient to go to war? >> no. i think a u.n. resolution when you say sufficient to go to war, i think a u.n. resolution is a necessary ingredient to provide the legal basis for military action in an emergency. it is not by any means,

sufficient to require the united states to do something because we -- our constitution and our interest and our rights. but i think . >> you've heard president's morsi's comments about israelis being blood suckers and decent of apes and pigs. do you think it's wise. >> i think the comments are reprehensible and the comments set back the possibilities of working towards neutral issues of mutual interest. they are degrading comments, they are unacceptable by anybody's standard. i think they have to appropriately be apologized for. >> they only understand the -- [inaudible] >> not going chafer change their behavior. >> president morsi has issued two statements to clarify those

comments, and we had a group of senates who met with him the other day who spent a good part of the conversation and relatively in a discussion with him about it. but not everything, you know, this is always the complication in dealings and the international sector. not everything lends it to a simple clarity black, white, this, that every time. we have critical interests with jichtd. critical interest with egypt. egypt has thus far supported and lived by the peace agreement with israel. israel and -- has taken steps to begin to deal with the problem of security in sinai. those are vital to us and our national interest and the security of vale. in-- israel. in addition to that, they have

followed through on the promise to have an election. >> you know, but i -- >> things are not black and white. they had an election. they had a constitutional process. there's another election that is coming up shortly for the lower house. the fact sometimes other countries elect somebody that you don't completely agree with doesn't give us permission to walk away from their election. >> this has been our problem with the foreign policy for decades. republican and democrat, we funded bin laden. we funded -- we were favor in radical jihad. they were enemy of the enemy. i have seen the weapons coming back to threaten israel and support for syrian rebels to threaten israel as well. i see problems with this. >> as you know, senator, in any of the armed sales that the united has engaged in, there's always a measure test, a applied with respect a qualityive

difference in any of those weapons with respect to israel's deference and security. and we do not sell weapons and will not sell weapons that might upset that balance. >> we sell to egypt we have to give twenty five to israel. it sounds like fueling an arms race. why not give any weapons to israel's enemy and make it safer for israel. >> better yet. until we're at that moment where that might be achievable, maybe it might be better to make peace. >> one more question. would you consider supporting conditioning aid to pakistan for the release of the doctor. i'm afraid if we don't support informant who helped us we not going get any more informant. >> let me speak to that. first of all, i have talked directly to the president and the general about the doctor.

and like most americans, i find it, as you do, incomprehensible if not repugnant that somebody who helped to find osama bin laden is in jail in pakistan. that bothers every american. that said, the pakistan make the argument he didn't know what he was doing. that he didn't know who he was specifically targeting or what was happening. >> do you think he knew he was helping americans? >> let me finish. let me just finish. he clearly knew what he was doing in that because they also make the argument that he was doing that as a matter of fact of regular course of business for him. that said, that's no excuse. i'm simply explaining to you that rather than cut aid, which is a pretty dramatic, draconian

sledge hammer approach to a relationship that really has a lot of interests, you know, we have our ground line of communications, which is the military's complicated word for roadses that go to afghanistan, and that route is critical to our supply of our troops. we have . >> the condition not cuts. >> we have in addition to that, had intelligence cooperation. our folks were able to cooperate on the ground in pakistan, that's one of the ways we were able to get osama bin laden. i don't think the pakistanis got credit they they were helpful. it wasserit wasser that permissiveness in allowing our people to be there to help us tie the knots that focused on that, to some degree. not exclusively obviously. to some degree. in addition they have lost some

6,000 people in the last year, in their efforts to go after terrorists. they have lost about 30,000 people over the course of the last several years because they have been willing to engage the insuring sei and so -- insurgency. think are things that the pakistanis have done as complicated as the relationship has been. i think that -- i intend to raise the issue of the doctor with him. i can promise you that. but i am not going to recommend nor do i think it is wise for american policy to just cut our assistance. we need to build our relationship with the pakistanis not diminish it. >> senator murphy. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, senator kerry. i'm sorry that our careers in the senate will only overlap far few weeks. i want to thank you, for those in our corner of the country who have come in to public service in the last ten to twenty years it's been your example that

inspired many of us to do so. your ability to both position yourself as a spokesman for the franchise and dispossessed but also as a -- our country's interest. i think there are a lot of that came to public service in part of your work for our region. i thank you for that. i want to spend my short time turning to the asia-pacific region. and specifically spending a little bit of time on china as well. secretary clinton in a speech gave in singapore sometime back crafted a great but very simple phrase about how today for the first time in modern history you can become a global superpower through the power of your economy. not by the power of your military. china is obviously the best example of that. it has now turned the focus to military mite as well. in connecticut, we, you know, have we about 40% of the export

sent to the region today. on an annual basis we are increasing our country's export to the region bay 25 to 30% clip. we know specifically with respect to china that those numbers peal in comparison to what they could be. because high manufacturers coward the perspective of sending products there that will be immediately be replicated and sold in counter feet markets. -- counterfeit markets. they get in to china. they get a fair shot of getting to our market. secretary clinton talked about the new concept of economic state craft. i want to get your thoughts about how we can use and continue to use the power of the department of state to try to pressure the chinese to both correct the flaws with respect to its dispositions on intellectual property, and pressure that nation to open up the markets to more american

goods, and in general, you know, how you see our ability in that -- our ability to exercise economic pressure on that region to be a source what we hope is a doubling of exports as the president has commanded us to do over the next five years. >> well, first of all, senator, thank you for your very nice comments. i appreciate it. and welcome to the committee. i'm delighted to see you and senator kaine on the committee, senator reid called me and we chatted about the folks who might serve on the committee. i'm delighted that both of you are there. i'm sorry that obviously we won't be working together on the committee. believe me, we're going to be working together. i look forward to it. look. secretary clinton if she was setting here she has previously said, and i will simply reintegrate and underscore,

china is an ongoing process, and it takes commitment and perseverance to breakthrough on one issue or another. we have at love issues with china. my intention is to focus as the administration has begun through the rebalancing to grow that rebalance because it's critical for us to strengthen our relationship with china. china is, you know, the other sort of significant economy in the world, and obviously has a voar ration appetite. we need to establish rules of the road that work for everybody. that's why they cape up with the transpacific partnership in an effort to try to help establish greater leverage, if you will, for this notion of broadly

accepted rules of the road. which are critical to our congress. but on things like intellectual property, market access, currency, there are still significant challenges ahead with china. now, my hope is that the new administration will will recognize also the need to sort of broaden the relationship with us in return. i think, i mean, i can envision a way in which china can flay a much more significant role as a partner in any number of efforts globally. we shouldn't be viewed as, i mean, we will be competitors in the economic marketplace, but we shouldn't be viewed as adversary in some way that diminishes our ability to cooperate on a number of things. china is cooperating with us now on iran. i think they be might be --

there might be more we can do with respect to north korea. i think there can be more we can do in ore parts of the far east. and hopefully we can build those relationships that will further that transformation. we make progress, it's incremental, it's a tough slog. there isn't any single magic way to approach it. if we can find a better sense of the neutrality of our interest and commonality of goals that we can work toward, climate change is an example, if we sit around where we are today, with respect to the comments i think senator barrasso made, we're going have a problem. china is soon going to have double the emission of the united states of america. we have got to get these folk z as part of the unified effort.

i intend to work very hard to do that. [inaudible] >> i appreciate that. the one probably most important stumbling block to that growing diplomatic partnership that i agree you could have trans formational potential for the world is the potential conflict between china's growing military footprint in the region and our pivot to asia when it comes to our military interest as well. away have seen the growing territorial dispute between china and philippines and china and japan and japan and korea. how do we rather than it out without getting drawn to the dispute which we have no immediate interest in. it makes it harder to stay disconnected if we have a larger footprint there? >> senator, i'm not convinced that increased military rampup is critical yet.

i'm not convince yet. that's something i want to look at carefully when and if you confirm and i get in there and dig in a little deeper. we have a lot more bases out there than any other country including china. we have a lot more forces than any other nation in the world than including china. we augmented the president's announcement in australia with additional marines, you know, the chinese take a look and say, what is the united states doing? they trying to circle us? what is going on? and so, you know, every action has the reaction. you know, not just law of physics, it's pricks. -- politics and diplomacy. i think we have to be thoughtful about, you know, how we goo forward. i want to take on the word pivot. i think pivot implies we're

turning away from somewhere else. i want to emphasize we are not turning away from anywhere else. whatever we do in china, it should not or in the far east in indonesia, which is rapidly growing and enormously important. vietnam all the countries, should not come, and i hope will not come at the expense of relationship in europe or the mideast or elsewhere. it can't. what we need to do is try to bring europe along with us to a recognition of the opportunities in the far east, it would improve our clout, it would leverage the market, perhaps there's been some talk about a u.s.-e.u. trade relationship. i don't know whether that can become a realty or not. i think that we need to think thoughtfully about not creating a threat where there isn't one, and understanding very carefully

where we can find basis of better cooperation. >> i want to emphasize, i want somebody out there saying kerry has a mistaken notion of what china is up to or what they're doing. i'm not saying you don't have to be pretty careful and vigilant and understands where it's going. i'm not talking about retreating from our current level, whatsoever. i'm simply trying to think about how we do this in a way that doesn't create the reaction you don't want to create. >> thank you. >> senator kaine? >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator kerry, in your twenty nine years of service it's a great example for the newcomers. i thank you for that and look forward to working with you as secretary. a comment and two questions. in the opening round of questions, you raised issues about our relations in the western hemisphere. that's deeply important to me. those have been touched on and

your response to senator udall and the reference to the transpacific partnership in the discussion with senator murphy. i worry a a little bit our foreign policy has been oriented east west. the north-south access is increditably important. i worry about the chinese being over the -- and in a time of inattention it's not as if we are standing sill. we can see our influence. as you ubt thatted the matters today. i really hope that the sate department has that north-south access a key focus. on to a question on a topic. your comments have demonstrated what has been a position of yours that understand we have unbreakable bond with israel and the statement about the nuclear ambition we have a policy pension not containment was

hearten to hear. i believe that deeply. as much as i believe that. i believe as difficult as it looks we also long for the day, long for the perspective there would be peace between a secure jewish state of israel and independent and process porous palestinian. it might seem unlikely. the current peaceful relationship n ireland seemed more than likely thirty years ago. what would your approach be as secretary of state in trying to advance that day so it might be sooner rather later. >> part of my approach is not to be too explicit here today. [laughter] i have a lot of thoughts about that challenge, and one of the things i guarantee you is that i don't want to prejudice it by

public demands to any party at this point in time. i think --ly say this, -- i will say this, president obama is deeply committed to a two-state solution. i have been reading lately, speculation about whether or not he is committed to the process or what he thinks or believes, its. a lot of it is simply wrong, blown out of proportion. the president understands the stakes and the implications in the middle east, and the almost -- so much of what we aspire to achieve and what we need to do globally what we need to do in south asia, south-central asia, throughout the gulf, all of this is tied to what can or doesn't

happen with respect to israel-palestinian. and in some places it is used as an excuse. in other places it's a genuine deeply felt challenge. i'm not going to say anything that prejudices our ability to try to get it moving in the appropriate way, in the appropriate manner and i'm not going to go in to what its. i think i personally believe i've within -- been at this almost twenty newspaper years in the committee. i have been at it. i have watched all of it. i was on the lawn, when we were there with the handshake. i have been through seven prime minister and nine in all. tbof them were the say. and i have seen plantation and

madrid and oslo and so forth. we need to try to find a way forward and i happen to believe that there is a way forward, but i also believe if we can't be successful, the door or window, whatever you want to call it to the possibility two of-state solution could shut on everybody. that would be disastrous in my judgment. i think this is an enormously important issue, and never step back from my commitment to the state of israel, which i have shown for the twenty nine years i have been here. ly also not step back from my understanding of the plight of palestinians and others who are caught up in this world in this young children whom i have seen have hopes for future and i

would like to see us deliver. >> the state department and secretary play critical role in human rights. you have touched on them today the recent camp you were involved in some way was the activity of secretary clinton and others on behalf of the human rights activist in china. human rightings issue i'm concerned about is religious freedom. you and i share a faith background and share a commitment to the bedrock principle that all should be able to worship as they please or not without official punishment whether it's muslim in europe or repression of christians or anti-semitism. they have a valuable role to play and the protecting of the religious minority. i would love to hear you talk about that for a second. >> i couldn't agree more. i'm glad you raised that issue. it's at the core of who we are,

i mean, the tolerance of which the united states is founded is one of our greatest attributes. it's interesting, let me tell you that, you know, we have gone through our own sort of tush lance in that. we -- tesh lens. we didn't arrive at it naturally. the pure contains came purr tans came to montana and roger williams who left massachusetts and traveled through the forests through the winter and came out on a day and called it providence. it's now providence, rhode island. you have, you know, john davenport and others went down new haven, connecticut, they were getting away from religious persecution here in our own country. it took us awhile to get it right. i think we do. and needless to say, one of the roles of the state department is to help people understand what

an essential ingredient tolerance is and diversity and pluralism to the ability of the country to flourish and the people to have their rights. that is one of the big challenges we face. you know, i'm sure my advisers in the state department would say, stop there, senator, i'm going to say something additional, which is i have a lot of friends who are muslim who've i've met and build relationships over the years in my travels, and leaders in that region will be the first to tell you, me, others that what you see in radical muslim is not israel. it's really radical slafm. it isn't exploitation and hijacking of an old honored

religion. what we need to do is find a way, and this is something we have to work at, for people to understand the degree to which it's happening. and becoming in some places an excuse for their disfranchisement. for being deprived good government and economy and job and opportunity. one of our missions is not not let it be an excuse. so i think that carrying the banner of religious tolerance is critical. i know, we have raised that with president morsi. i have personally raised that with him. i think was the first american to meet with president morsi even before he knew he was a candidate. we talked about the need for the brotherhood to be able to respect the diversity of egypt. now that hasn't happened completely as much as we would like in the constitutional process, but as i said, that's

an ongoing process. we need to work together in order try to do it. senator, you raised a central, central issue with respect what is happening to the politics of certain regions of the world, and it's gotten to be front and center of our diagnose. >> thank you. >> senator? >> mr. chairman, thank you for having the hearing. and mr. chairman, i think all of us who have known you and nonyour service here for twenty nine years -- i thought you have done exceptionally well. you're going to be confirmed in the next few cays. i thank you for your -- i thank you for the fact that you want to serve in this position, but also the fact that you develop such an extensive background in understanding. i know, you'll be good in the job. i look forward to working with you. thank you for your patience today. mr. chairman, the two quick

questions. one is having gone through the lengthy hearing on the administrative review boards the recommendation and what happened in benghazi, can we be assured that your personally going to see the implementation and it make a top priority. >> yes. >> with reference to the democracy programs worldwide can we expect you to be a strong supporter. >> yes. >> i have no intense ever raising -- to suggest that spring break is a form of tourture to the castro regime, unfortunately they were expert of the torture as increased brutal crackdown on peaceful democracy on the island over 6,600 peaceful democracy advocates detained or arrested.

just this past sunday, the ladies in white, a group of women who dress in white and march every sunday with with a glad owe that to church try to come together to go to church this past sunday, and the result of that -- these are individuals who are the relatives of former or current political prisoners in castro's jails. the result is that more than thirty five of the women in white were intercepted, beaten with belts, threatened to death by agents aiming guns at them and temporarily. and we have a united states citizens who all he tried to do is give access to the internet to a small jewish population in halve van havana and has been in jail for four years. that's real realtorture. mr. chairman, you have griffin an incrediblingly thoughtful,

extensive, passionate at times and incredible depth of knowledge for nearly three hours and fifty minutes. it's a testament to your long service your, your long commitment, and with a we can expect of you as the next secretary of state. i know, that your father, who also served this country would be extremely proud of you today. the committee will receive questions for the record until the close of business today. so we urge the members who may have questions to do so by the close of business today. we encourage the nominee as well as the department to respond as quickly as possible. the hearing adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] ..

he discussed this will help inform policy yesterday at the council on foreign relations. "washington post" editorial writer charles lane moderated. >> i say to be a cold day in washington before it ever preside again. so here we are. pat yourselves on the back for turning out in this weather, but i think strong turnout is a tribute, both she yourselves and they guess we